Idea Check

Idea Check

Overview

Use this skill to produce a CSPaper-style idea map: closest accepted papers, field synthesis, overlap/difference analysis, and open gaps. Treat the result as a landscape map, not an accept/reject verdict.

Core Rules

• Focus on idea position, novelty delta, and opportunity space. Do not turn this into a correctness, experiment, or paper-quality review.
• Prefer recent accepted or published work from strong venues as the comparison base. Use arXiv-only work only when it is clearly closest or the user asks for frontier preprints.
• Separate "closest prior work" from "broad background." A famous paper that shares only the general area is not a close neighbor.
• Explain both directions for every neighbor: what the prior paper contributes, and exactly how the user's idea overlaps and differs.
• Preserve uncertainty. If search coverage is thin, venue scope is narrow, or the idea is underspecified, lower confidence instead of inventing gaps.
• Do not claim an idea is novel merely because no identical title was found. Novelty depends on task, input/output contract, mechanism, evaluation object, assumptions, and claimed contribution.

Workflow

1. Extract The Idea Signature

Read the idea, abstract, proposal, or draft and write a compact signature:

• problem and motivation;
• target domain and users;
• input/output contract;
• proposed mechanism, model, theorem, benchmark, dataset, system, or empirical claim;
• what the author seems to claim is new;
• expected venue family or field;
• 5-10 search keywords and synonyms.

If the input is only a broad topic, ask for a sharper idea unless a rough landscape scan is still useful.

2. Find Close Prior Work

Use local papers when supplied. Otherwise search the web and bibliographic sources. For current papers, venue status, and citation metadata, browse or query external sources; do not rely on memory.

Prioritize:

• recent top venues in the relevant area;
• accepted main-track papers, journals, and well-established proceedings;
• papers matching at least two of task, input/output contract, method family, evaluation object, assumptions, or target claim.

Aim for 6-10 neighbors. Label each as:

• suggested: very close and likely required reading;
• worth-a-look: useful overlap or adjacent mechanism;
• tangential: broad context, not a core novelty threat.

3. Build The Field Map

Before judging novelty, synthesize the retrieved field:

• dominant theme;
• methodological spectrum;
• common assumptions and evaluation settings;
• venue and year distribution;
• recurring baselines, datasets, metrics, theorems, or systems;
• confidence level: high, medium, or low.

Use references/idea-rubric.md for the detailed checklist and report template.

4. Position The User's Idea

Write one short "where this idea sits" paragraph. It should say:

• which cluster of prior work the idea belongs to;
• what seems genuinely different;
• whether the difference is a new problem, new mechanism, new setting, new evidence, new resource, or only a reframing;
• what evidence would be needed to defend the positioning.

Avoid final-sounding verdicts like "definitely novel" unless the search is unusually strong.

5. Identify Gaps And Risks

For each gap, make clear whether it is:

• a real open space suggested by multiple close papers;
• a potential paper angle that needs evidence;
• a weak gap caused by limited search coverage;
• a claim that may collapse if a missing neighbor is found.

Also list novelty risks: closest papers the author must cite, likely reviewer objections, and wording that should be narrowed.

Output Shape

Use this order:

1. Idea Signature: 4-7 bullets.
2. Your Idea In Context: one concise positioning paragraph.
3. Field Landscape: dominant theme, method spectrum, venue/year mix, confidence.
4. Closest Related Papers: table with title, venue/year, match label, match rationale, what sets it apart, relevance to this idea.
5. Open Gaps And Opportunities: concrete directions, each tied to retrieved literature.
6. Novelty Risks: what could undermine the idea's claimed contribution.
7. Actionable Next Steps: readings, claim revisions, or experiments needed to make the idea defensible.

Resources

• references/idea-rubric.md: detailed CSPaper-style criteria, search protocol, match labels, and output template.